Carpenter v. Continental Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland. (Stickney, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion and head-notes.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
The plaintiff was the owner of the undivided half of the premises insured. At the time the insurance which forms the subject of this controversy was ■effected, Arthur C. Emmons, a grandson of plaintiff, was the •■owner of the other undivided half. The risk was written in ■defendant company, September 10, 1880, upon a written application of plaintiff, reference to which will be made further on. In August, 1880, Polly Carpenter and Arthur C. Emmons united in a mortgage to one William R. Jones, of Waterford, Oakland county, Michigan, which bears date the fifth, and was acknowledged by Arthur on…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Titus v. . Glens Falls Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Carpenter v. Providence Washington InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Tyler v. Ætna Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. KittleMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- German Insurance v. GibsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Marthinson v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Towle v. Ionia, Eaton & Barry Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.